If you have a Kindle 2, you can strip the DRM from its AZW ebooks using mobidedrm and Calibre can convert DRM-free AZW (MOBI) ebooks to LRF or ePub for a Sony. This is probably legal in the US providing it is only for personal use.

Amazon now has Kindle for PC, but so far the PID used on the PC is a secret and so mobidedrm won't work. So currently you need a Kindle 1/2/DX or an iPhone/touch to liberate AZW ebooks. Note that some Kindle ebooks are in the TOPAZ ebook format, and these are Kindle-only.

I didn't realize that kind of thing was illeagal, why don't they just make a universal kind of file so they work on everything? Does it ruin them to change them or make them look different?

Well, if you can use your Kindle book on anyone else's reader, then you don't NEED a Kindle, now do you? That's the reason behind Amazon's thinking with the DRM, I reckon... sorta like Fairplay with the iPod, except that Apple's selling DRM-free tracks which only have information embedded into them now instead.

In fact, untill recently the only way you were allowed to buy eBooks from Amazon was if you had a registred Kindle / iPod-Kindle-app linked to your account. I tried to buy a book from them a few months ago, figuring the DRM would be removable, but without a registred Kindle there was just no way.

This is actually one of the reasons I was looking into a kindle (ended up buying an ipod touch for now).Only thing holding me back now,besides not having had the time to actually figure out how to do it,is maybe either a) getting a kindle or b) getting a nook...although ultimately I think I love my sony for reading (esp for Overdrive libraries),and sometimes I just don't have the time or energy.

Me personally,I would pay more to be able to have something in the format of my choice (although ideally it would be nice if there were a standard and all this extra work weren't necessary !) I also don't see a problem with it being stripped for personal use ....

The legal issues here are not black and white. At the moment, we have two conflicting laws. The DCMA states you can't monkey around with DRM. However, the Copyright Act gives you the the to make a fair use backup copy. In the case of a DRM'ed electronic copy of book, these laws are not compatible: one gives you the right to make a copy of your book, the other says you can't strip the DRM to do it. However, by not allowing you to make a copy, the DCMA strips you of your rights under the Copyright Act, and thus is "illegal". It is going to take a court decision to sort this out - the judicial branch is going to have to decide what is more important from a Constitutional perspective: the right of a company to arbitrarily lock it's content down or for an individual to do what they want with a piece of property they own. I think you can see from by biased framing of the question which way the judges are likely to lean. So, the DRM players (DVD makers, MP3 sellers, etc.) haven't dared to sue anyone for backing up their content: they don't want a precedent set that will unleash a flood of backups. Right now, the DCMA stands as a threat to copiers, though a toothless threat for individuals.

The short is, yes, according to the DCMA, to buy a Kindle book and strip it of DRM is illegal. However, the Copyright Act gives you permission to do this, so it is also legal. And I think the odds are very good that Amazon isn't going to choose any of us to send this contradiction to the Supreme Court to get sorted out.

The legal issues here are not black and white. At the moment, we have two conflicting laws. The DCMA states you can't monkey around with DRM. However, the Copyright Act gives you the the to make a fair use backup copy. In the case of a DRM'ed electronic copy of book, these laws are not compatible: one gives you the right to make a copy of your book, the other says you can't strip the DRM to do it. However, by not allowing you to make a copy, the DCMA strips you of your rights under the Copyright Act, and thus is "illegal". It is going to take a court decision to sort this out - the judicial branch is going to have to decide what is more important from a Constitutional perspective: the right of a company to arbitrarily lock it's content down or for an individual to do what they want with a piece of property they own. I think you can see from by biased framing of the question which way the judges are likely to lean. So, the DRM players (DVD makers, MP3 sellers, etc.) haven't dared to sue anyone for backing up their content: they don't want a precedent set that will unleash a flood of backups. Right now, the DCMA stands as a threat to copiers, though a toothless threat for individuals.

The short is, yes, according to the DCMA, to buy a Kindle book and strip it of DRM is illegal. However, the Copyright Act gives you permission to do this, so it is also legal. And I think the odds are very good that Amazon isn't going to choose any of us to send this contradiction to the Supreme Court to get sorted out.

Well, certainly you could make a backup copy with the drm in place. That does not conflict with fair use/backup. The Copyright Act does not take into account DRM at all as far as I know. The two are not in conflict as far as I can tell. I also don't think Copyright explicitly says you are allowed to make a backup copy. Fair use is a different thing (allowing you to quote part of a copyright work) for examples, training, etc. It might also allow full copies to be made for training, but I'm not confident that is the case.